Search Documents

"The Morris Island Lighthouse (MIL) is located between the jetties leading to the Charleston Harbor and Folly Beach, S.C. The present structure is the third lighthouse to occupy this location. The first navigational aid was erected in 1673, and consisted of a raised pan filled with pitch, which was set afire at night to guide early ships. The next structure was built in 1767, and constituted the first real lighthouse, standing 42 ft (12.8 m) in height. In 1838, a second lighthouse was built on the site, and it measured 102 ft (31 m) in height and featured a revolving light. This structure lasted until 1862 when Confederate troops, during the Civil War, destroyed it to deny its use to Union troops.Navigators steered these waters without a lighthouse for nearly a decade until 1876, when the current structure was built under the direction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). In 1886, the Charleston area suffered a M7.6 earthquake. Significant damage was caused throughout much of the area, including a slight “list” of the lighthouse to the northeast. As a result, the cast of the beacon was reduced from 18 mi (29 km) to about 6 mi (9.7 km), causing much distress to navigators until the beacon platform was releveled and remains at this list to the present day.Conditions for ConcernThe current lighthouse was originally constructed about 1,200 ft (366 m) from the shoreline. Over the years, USACE has undertaken several programs to meet the increased shipping and navigation demands in the Charleston Harbor. Around the turn of the last century, two jetties were constructed, which drastically changed the approach direction for ships entering the harbor. In subsequent years, the harbor began to experience accelerated siltation."

Jan 1, 2017

By Jiwei Duan

The deformation and load transfer behavior of a single soil-cement column are studied with the finite element method. The results show that there is an effective length for a soil-cement column. Beyond this length, the settlement of the column is approximately equal to a constant. The effective pile length is introduced to the concentric cylinder approach (Randolph and Wroth 1978), and an analytical formula for estimating the settlement of a single flexible pile is presented. A second analytical formula for determining the effective pile length of a soil-cement column is obtained and an example shows that the calculated and measured results are in quite good agreement.

Jan 1, 2002

By David B. Paul

"ABSTRACTThe US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has 704 dams in their inventory and over 100,000 miles of levees with a capital value of over $150 billion. Currently, there are 319 dams that are classified as high hazard and have actionable failure modes that will require structural modifications. The most frequent actionable failure mode associated with the inventory is seepage and piping. One of the most effective engineering solutions is the installation of a cutoff to limit seepage. Currently, USACE has over $1.5 Billion of cutoff wall projects under construction and/or design. Given the magnitude of the dam and levee safety issues, USACE is developing a new Engineering Manual (EM) titled “Seepage Control Cutoffs for Dams and Levees.” This EM covers all of the methods to construct cutoff walls. USACE has partnered with the Deep Foundation Institute (DFI) in preparation of the EM to ensure that it is comprehensive and draws from the expertise of the specialty foundation engineering companies that design, manufacture, and construct seepage control cutoffs around the world. The EM contains case histories as well as a comprehensive project statistical summary and guide specification paragraphs. The goal of USACE was to make the EM a state of the art document for use by Districts.HISTORYSlurry wall construction techniques were developed in the late 1940’s in Italy by ICOS. The first use of the slurry trench method of construction in the United States was by the USACE Memphis District in September 1945, to form a partial cutoff along the Mississippi River levee on the Arkansas side of the river just below Memphis, Tennessee. The idea for the project probably evolved from the use at that time of puddle clay trench cutoffs combined with the use of drilling mud for advancing borings. A paddle wheel mixing device was constructed for making slurry from native clays. Trenches were dug to a 20-ft depth using a trenching machine and to a 35-ft depth using a dragline with a 100-ft boom and 2-cu-yd bucket. Backfill was mixed in windrows at the site from hauled-in clay gravel and native materials and pushed into the trench by a bulldozer when the length of the trench was equal to about twice the trench depth. It is amazing that after almost 70 years, the technique is still about the same as it was when first developed by the Memphis District. A soilbentonite cutoff was constructed under the Kennewick Levee adjacent to the Columbia River as part of the McNary Dam Project in Washington by the Walla Walla District in 1952 The first application of a soil-bentonite slurry trench cutoff for control of underseepage at a major earth dam was at Wanapum Dam on the Columbia River in Washington in 1959.The first cement- bentonite cutoff in the United States was constructed at the Tilden Tailings Project to store tailings from the Tilden Mine in Michigan in 1976. The first cement-bentonite cutoff constructed at a dam on a river retaining a reservoir in the United States was completed in 1978 at the Elgo Dam (formerly the San Carlos Dam) in Arizona.The USACE has designed and constructed some of the deepest and most complex cutoff walls for dams since the 1970’s. The first major concrete panel cutoff wall constructed in a dam in the United States was at Wolf Creek Dam (Nashville District) by the ICOS Corporation between 1974-77. The dam has a long history of seepage issues associated with the karst geology that comprises the foundation. In 1968, about 17 years after first being impounded, wet areas, muddy flows in the tailrace and sinkholes in the downstream toe adjacent to the switchyard occurred."

Jan 1, 2014

By Dena Morgan, Emre Biringen

"Abstract This paper discusses the execution of pile installation and design issues at two environmentally challenging industrial sites in North America. Environmental regulations set constraints on the design and require versatility in choice of technology.For a proposed bridge, due to protected fish habitat, performing soil borings within 30 m of the creek embankment was prohibited. The limited subsurface profile indicated a thick upper layer of granular material, thus driving H-piles was considered. However, to limit generation of vibration and noise in the protected area, drilled piles had to be used. During execution, the subsurface profile differed from that in the borings 30 m away. Very soft, saturated silt was encountered at the bottom of the caisson and the length had to be redesigned very quickly while the contractor waited for instruction. For a new structure in uncontrolled fill area, performing soil borings was not allowed. It was known that a layer of peat was present in the area, but no information regarding the thickness and extent. The subsurface profile generally consisted of granular material overlying a thick compressible silt layer. Somewhere within the granular layer peat would likely be encountered. Franki piles were chosen to penetrate the peat and bear in the underlying granular material. During environmental sampling in the area, methane gas was encountered and Franki piles were no longer a viable option due to safety concerns. The foundation system was changed to steel H-piles driven to bedrock, which was more than 50 m below the ground surface and sloping. Rock shoes that would work to significant slopes had to be used in order to increase the likelihood of good embedment within the bedrock. Also, due to obstruction of an approximately 3 m thick debris field that was encountered in the upper granular soils, some of the piles had to be relocated and extra piling needed to compensate for such differences. The results of PDA testing to estimate compressive capacity and a series of lateral load tests are presented.INTRODUCTIONThe design issues that are encountered during construction can be quite problematic and have a significant impact on schedule. In order to avoid such impact on the project, a thorough subsurface investigation should be considered prior to design and construction. Better understanding of environmental regulations also prevents costly changes to the foundation design. This paper discusses the execution of pile installation and the design issues at two environmentally challenging sites in North America.BRIDGEDuring the subsurface investigation for a proposed industrial building complex, several boreholes were drilled within the footprint or in close proximity of various structures, with Standard Penetration (SPT) sampling of the upper coarse-grained soils (sand/gravel) and undisturbed sampling of the lower fine-grained soils (silt/clay). The SPT blow counts (N60) were corrected by a factor of 1.35 in order to incorporate the SPT automatic energy transfer ratio. When Modified California Sampler was used, a correction factor of 0.44 to 0.64 was also applied. N60 values were further corrected for gravel to avoid artificially high blow counts during the analyses due to spoon samples contact with gravel and cobbles, and the corrected values of (NG)60 (limited to a maximum value of 50 blows/300 mm) were used for design. The information from the SPT boreholes was then used to assess the subsurface conditions beneath the structures, as well as for a nearby bridge that was designed to cross over a creek. Since performing soil borings within 30 m of the creek embankment was prohibited due to the protected fish habitat, the investigation with regard to the bridge abutments was limited to two deep boreholes (B10-33 and B10-34) at the bridge location and two additional boreholes (B10-35 and B10- 36) located approximately 200 m upstream. The bridge location and two sets of boreholes are"

Jan 1, 2014

By John S. Civetta, Seth Martin, Marc J. Gallagher, Arthur J. Alzamora, Ronald Peralta

The Crown Building, built circa 1921, is a 26-story iconic building located at West 57th Street and Fifth Avenue in the heart of Manhattan. The paper highlights collaboration between the geotechnical engineer and foundation contractor to develop economical and practical solutions to foundation design and construction challenges associated with this complex redevelopment project. The project includes both below-grade and above-grade expansion of the occupied building, and required undermining the existing foundations, and essentially doubling the foundation loads. The below-grade expansion required surgical foundation work including drilling minicaissons, shoring columns, underpinning, and excavating 20 feet of rock.

By J. C. W. M. de Wit

An excavation, within which a tunnel is sunk as a part of the Centraal Station underground station (platform section) of the Noord/Zuidlijn ('North/South Line'), is to be created beneath the Amsterdam Centraal ('Amsterdam Central') station. The section beneath Amsterdam Centraal Station is characterised by the application of a particular technology in the form of, inter alia, the so-called 'sandwich wall'. This is a composite wall consisting of two rows of Tubex piles with a body of jetgrout columns in-between. This wall acts both as an excavation support wall and also provides vertical bearing. The installation of the wall, including both Tubex piles and jetgrout columns, within these specific conditions (limited height, sensitive historical building), within the design requirements set in terms of construction tolerance and water and soil retention, may be regarded as being a pioneering achievement. The environmental constraints are that the trains should continue to run, the inconvenience to passengers should be kept to a minimum and the historic station should not suffer any damage. Because of the complexity of the working conditions, the project is being overseen by a steering group of experts in the specified construction processes. In order to manage the project risks, jet grouting trials were initially carried out, in order to highlight and control execution problems; the practicability of the design is then tested. Work commenced on the sandwich wall in 2003, when the wooden piles were extracted at the locations where the sandwich wall was to be constructed; in 2004, the steel Tubex piles for the southern wall sections were installed. From May 2005, the construction of the sandwich wall got under way; in addition to the described process supervision, an extensive measuring programme was established, so that the process could be adjusted as necessary and the quality of the finished product determined. This applied to both individual columns and for the end product, the sandwich wall. The measurement results were processed for each column, interpreted and the effect on the work still to be conducted was assessed for each future column. Preventative and corrective measures were, if necessary, taken in order to control or counteract the measured defect. In addition to the process-oriented and qualitative measurements, various independent measurement systems at the station building served as a further control in order to prevent damage to the building.

Jan 1, 2006

By Bernardo J. Jiménez Vega, Edy L. T. Montalvan

During the last phase of the Circunvalacion Norte project in San Jose, Costa Rica, preliminary designs for an underpass structure of over 16 km (10 miles) considered drilled shafts as an earth retaining system. Since the project’s execution was delayed and close to the deadline, it was necessary to optimize this structure, with the drilled shafts being the most critical aspect. The key element in order to obtain an improved design was characterizing the job site with a specific site study for seismic demand, and the use of advanced numerical modelling, considering soil-structure interaction. The site investigation comprised the CPT, PMT, MASW geophysical tests, deep exploration drilling, and triaxial compression tests. The terrain was modeled using an advanced constitutive model with hardening plasticity calibrated from the triaxial tests. Plaxis software was used to calibrate the seismic model for the terrain and for the dynamic analysis. Two conditions were considered for the retaining structure: free-head and fixed head. A parametric study with drilled shafts of 1.0 m (3.3 ft) and 1.2 m (3.9 ft) in diameter, and center-to-center spacing of 1.3 m (4.3 ft) and 3.0 m (9.8 ft) was conducted in order to obtain an optimized structure. For each condition of the drilled shaft wall, the computed deformations were compared for two spectrum designs: site-specific spectrum and seismic code generic spectrum. Finally, a dynamic analysis was performed to check the performance of the drilled shafts with optimized spacing using a control earthquake. Based upon seismic performance curves, the analysis showed the possibility of greater spacing for the drilled shafts compared to the original design, obtaining a 32% reduction in the total length of the drilled shafts in the project.

Oct 1, 2022

By Rafael A. Rivera

"Since the dawn of construction, there has been a need for excavations, which sometimes need to occur below the groundwater table. Excavations in themselves are difficult enough, with the myriad of requirements, such as engineered support of excavations, considerations for stability and numerous other concerns. Excavations executed in rural landscapes can be accomplished easily without significant consideration to accessibility, adjacent properties or structures, and construction limits and deformations. However, all of these factors can have an impact on excavation considerations in an urban landscape. When digging below the groundwater table, these conditions, along with concerns associated with groundwater drawdown requirements, discharge limitations, groundwater contamination, property limits, adjacent buildings and subsidence concerns, can lead an experienced dewatering contractor to consider diverse installation methodology and equipment to allow construction to occur below the groundwater table.534 W. 29th St. New York, N.Y.There are many things that must be considered when constructing a new high-rise building within a small property footprint measuring 25 ft (7.6 m) wide by 80 ft (24.4 m) in length. When you take into account that the foundation needs to go several feet below the groundwater table and that there are two existing multistory buildings with shallower foundations on either side of the proposed structure, this task now becomes much more difficult. Consideration of geology, groundwater levels, depths of excavation and shoring for the excavation becomes critical to the success of the project. On a regular basis, dewatering contractors confront similar situations in congested cities where available real estate is limited.To minimize the negative impacts of construction dewatering, it is important to mitigate the potential effects of construction dewatering to the surrounding buildings, sidewalks, underground structures, tunnels, subways and other existing infrastructure. Such an instance occurred at the project located at 534 W. 29 St. in New York City. On this particular project, the required drawdown was greater than the typical 15 ft (4.6 m) of suction lift, so a vacuumed can pump system was utilized. The tubing was connected to a vacuumed perimeter dewatering well-point system, which is a predrainage system that is installed prior to the start of excavation for the underpinning of the adjacent structures and for the overall foundation. Each well-point, which was composed of a PVC pipe that was 1.5 in (38 mm) in diameter by 25 ft (7.6 m) long, was drilled to a depth of about 23 ft (7 m) using a hollow stem auger and was installed around the perimeter at a centerto- center spacing of about 7.67 ft (2.3 m). In lieu of a traditional perimeter collection header, and to allow for greater flexibility for the contractor, the well-points were interconnected to a modified vacuum can pump system utilizing ¾ in (19 mm) drop tubes that were “spaghetti” around the perimeter."

Jan 1, 2017

By Josef K. Alter

Crosshole Sonic Logging (CSL) of drilled shafts requires 1.5-in (38-mm) or 2-in (51-mm) I.D. sonic access tubes to be installed inside the steel reinforcement cage. The sonic access tubes do not contribute to the structural capacity of the drilled shaft. The proposed use of Ischebeck TITAN T73/56 CSL/Hollow Threaded Rebar for Cross Hole Sonic Logging Access Tubes Combined with Longitudinal Concrete Reinforcing in Drilled Shafts (patent pending) is discussed as an alternative method of construction and CSL probe access. The T73/56 hollow threaded rebar/sonic access tube performs as a high strength rebar while at the same time creating a 2.2-in (56-mm) I.D. sonic access tube. The deformed high strength hollow bar provides better adhesion to concrete thus reducing the problem of debonding associated with smooth PVC and steel pipe. A cost comparison using conventional rebar with added sonic access tubes is discussed. The use of T73/56 CSL/Hollow Threaded Rebar as a value engineering alternative can reduce both material and labor costs for drilled shaft construction and can provide an advantage where anchor bolt cages and longitudinal reinforcing create congestion.

Jan 1, 2011

By Ali Azizian, Brian Hall

"Driven piles were selected to support the Fraser Heights Bridge bents. Piles were a key component of the top-down construction approach, which was adopted for minimizing potential impacts on an environmentally sensitive wetland. Project requirements mandated verification of pile capacities using dynamic methods. More than 40 Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) tests were performed. The subsurface conditions were highly variable. On the east side, piles extended through loose sands, soft silts/clays, and two peat layers and were founded in glacial till-like soils at about 45 m depth. However, on the west side, till-like materials were so shallow that it was difficult to drive the piles sufficiently deep to obtain the necessary lateral support. This paper provides an overview of the geotechnical considerations of the bridge design and top-down construction approach, and expands on the presentation of PDA results and how they compared to pile capacity estimation methods and parameters recommended in the applicable design codes.INTRODUCTIONThe Fraser Heights Bridge (FHB) was a component of the Fraser Heights Connector (FHC), a 2 km section of the South Fraser Perimeter Road (SFPR), constructed as part of the Port Mann/Highway 1 (PMH1) Improvement Project. The FHC is located in northeast Surrey BC (Fig. 1).Two major design and construction determinants were: 1) a mandated tight schedule to provide a non-tolled alternative to a new toll bridge; and, 2) an obligation that construction had to occur with minimal impact on the environmentally sensitive wetland the FHB crossed, including limiting the footprint of the permanent and temporary works to less than 45 m2, and prohibiting construction access onto the wetland. Construction equipment was only allowed on the wetland on temporary trestles or on the finished structure. This latter requirement resulted in the bridge being constructed span by span, using a top-down approach."

Jan 1, 2016

By Charles H. Dowding

Whenever piling vibrations are significant, construction activities associated with pile driving and/or excavation can produce permanent displacement. These permanent displacements are more detrimental to structural performance than the hair sized, cosmetic, plaster cracks that might be produced by slightly exceeding reasonable vibration controls. Case studies are presented which demonstrate the relative importance of permanent displacements compared to directly produced transient vibration displacement within a horizontal distance of one pile length. Special attention is paid to settlements produced by densification of liquefiable sands. SOURCES OF TRANSIENT AND PERMANENT DEFORMATION DURING CONSTRUCTION Confusion over multiple sources of facility deformation caused by adjacent construction complicates the discussion of the relative importance of vibration induced cracking. None of the recent scientific investigations of vibration induced cracking (Siskind et el, 1980), involved deformation other than that produced by ground vibration from rock blasting. Thus these studies carry the implicit assumption that no ground deformation occurred other than that produced by the transient vibration. In other words there is no permanent deformation other than that which is typical of the older residential structures investigated.

Jan 1, 1991

By Arash Khosravifar

The seismic design of extended pile shafts for the combined effects of dynamic shaking and liquefaction-induced lateral spreading is investigated using nonlinear dynamic finite element analyses (NDA). Results of NDA parameter studies are used to illustrate how inertia and lateral spreading loads combine during shaking. The NDA results are used to evaluate equivalent static analysis (ESA) methods. Implications for design practice are discussed.

Jan 1, 2010

By J. D. Findlay

The demands on development in London in recent years has led to the increasing use of top down construction methods in which there is a requirement to place steel columns to high tolerances into large diameter bored piles with deep cut-offs. A number of different proposals for the sequence of construction are being suggested. The tolerances requires for the steel columns are becoming increasingly stringent. This review examines a number of basic construction proposals and comments on the problems and solutions used by foundation contractors to provide the required foundations.

Jan 1, 1989

By Amanda R. Parry, Chris R. Pray

Predicting and modeling the soil structure interaction of laterally loaded piles with significant unbraced lengths is one of the challenges faced in designing many waterfront structures. Designers often rely on pile specific design software to calculate forces in an embedded pile and then couple that with either a structural design software to capture the behavior of the rest of the structure or use potentially overly conservative assumptions to omit modelling the piles entirely. Given that some projects have hundreds of piles coupled with hundreds of loading conditions, the shuttling of results from the structural analysis software into the pile analysis software can become cumbersome, difficult to track and manage, and prone to user input errors. An alternative approach recently used on two large marine infrastructure projects consisted of calibrating a structural analysis software to replicate the resultant outputs from a software developed specifically for pile analysis. This calibration was done using thoughtfully placed springs along a pile modeled in the structural analysis software to replicate the soil-structure interaction of the piles. The focus of this paper will be on the methodology used to calibrate the two software programs and an evaluation of the results which showed close agreement. Based on the two case studies, calibrating a generic finite element analysis software via this method should be considered as a reasonable and time saving design approach for pile-supported structures.

Sep 8, 2021

By G. R. Dasari

New Austrian Tunnelling Method (NATM) has been analysed by Finite Element method in two and three dimensions by Strain Dependant Modified Cam Clay (SDMCC) Model. The effects of construction sequence, stiffness of shotcrete and time dependency of shotcrete on surface settlement magnitude due to the NATM have been studied. Settlements obtained in 2D analysis, as expected, found to be more than the observations. The surface settlements obtained in 3D analysis found to be about 3 times less than equivalent plane strain analysis. This is due to mobilisation of soil strength around the tunnel face and soil-tunnel lining interaction. About 40% settlements occurred due to excavation of face at the monitor section and 60% after the excavation crossed monitor the section.

Jan 1, 1996

By Peter Chou

A total of 117 slope stabilization drilled piers were installed as part of a major hillside revitalization project. The 110-million dollar development, known as Stratford at Kenwood, included an 18-story upscale senior residential tower, a 3-story healthcare building, and 4-story condominium buildings, offering approximately 580,000 square feet of living space with panoramic views of Downtown Cincinnati, Ohio. In an effort to establish a flatter hillside plateau for the new 4-story condominium and to create a cut and fill balanced jobsite environment, an 800-foot long row of drilled piers and a 600-foot long multi-tiered shear key system was used to terrace existing 1.5H to 3H: 1V steep slopes and support the new fill. These slope stabilization features reduced the amount of spoils needed to be wasted off-site and mitigated the risk of slope instability. An ODOT/FHWA research indicated that spacing of stabilization piers and necessity of top-connecting elements are highly dependent on pier diameter, spacing, soil type, depth to potential failure surface, surcharge loads, and pier deflection. Due to pre-existing deep buried swales, various load combinations, and the complex mechanism of soil arching effects between adjacent piers, both analytical and numerical computer modeling was performed to estimate the loading on each pier. New generation multiplexed, 3-Dimensional, Micro-Electro-Mechanical-System based inclinometers were installed between selected piers to confirm the pier design, and monitor the fill placement, as well as long-term slope stability.

Jan 1, 2009

By Abid Adekunte

"Engineers and developers have witnessed the growing popularity of deep basement structures as components of urban commercial and residential developments. This is often attributed to inadequate surface parking facilities in urban centres and a somewhat popular belief that underground parking facilities improve both commercial and aesthetic values of urban structures. For many years, diaphragm walls and sheet pile walls have been widely accepted as effective deep excavation support systems for basement construction in urbanised zones. However, these are now being replaced by bored pile retaining walls as preferred earth retention systems of choice on many projects for several reasons, which may include economy, faster installation process, reduced space requirement for machinery and ancillary equipment, flexural rigidity and axial capacities.However, there are complexities associated with the use of bored pile retaining walls on urban developments. These include; limitations due to vertical and horizontal installation tolerances, which is a major issue when wall is required to provide groundwater cut-off for multi-level basements as tolerances are difficult to achieve for deep piles, uncertainty associated with the prediction of wall axial capacity as piles are rarely tested, difficulties in using temporary props as wall restraint due to restricted working spaces in urbanised zones and difficulties in adopting ground anchors as restraint due to the existence of adjacent sensitive structures in built-up areas. Such complexities have resulted in cases of failure, non-serviceability and abandonment of basement construction schemes. Therefore, overcoming the intricacies associated with the application of bored pile walls is becoming a priority to the present day basement engineer.This paper is centred on the numerical modelling, design, construction and monitoring aspects of four recent case histories of multi-level basement and marine engineering construction schemes in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, which involved the use of bored pile retaining walls. The paper highlights the various customised approaches and innovative novel solutions adopted on the sites, to mitigate risks and ultimately overcome the intricacies associated with the earth retention techniques. Simple empirical equations for developing the geometry of secant pile walls for effective groundwater cut-off are presented and validated. An alternative approach for predicting axial capacities of bored pile walls is also presented; this is shown to be considerably less conservative than a common routine design approach, while also in good agreement with observations made in a recent series of laboratory-based scale model tests."

Jan 1, 2017

By W. F. Van Impe

The design of piles and of pile groups has remarkably progressed over the past two decades. The in­creasing complexity of the building concept implements a more rational approach of the deep foundation capacity and its interaction with the structure. Moreover, the understanding of the soil characteristics relevant to deep foundation behaviour, is continuously in progress because soil parameters are always more accurately determined; which also contributed a lot to the recent developments in pile capacity design. At last, due to the increasing sensitivity of buildings to deformations, continuous attention must be also paid to pile group settlements. The aim of this report is to discuss some of the mentioned more important pile design developments.

Jan 1, 1994

By Dennis J. Riley

A. This outline addresses what a sub-contractor, or a subsub-contractor should do to get paid in the event the general contractor or building owner files for bankruptcy. B. Negotiating payment terms. Progress payments vs. "pay when paid". How a sub or subsub can avoid financing the contract. C. Court interpretation of "pay when paid" clauses allow postponement not excusal of payment. See, e.g., Seal Tite Corporation v. Ehret. Inc., 589 F. Supp. 701 (D.N.J. 1984) (where the court held that the general contractor could not delay payment indefinitely to the subcontractor in the event of non-payment from the owner); United Plate Glass Co. v. Metal Industries. Inc., 525 A.2d 468 (Commw. Ct. Pa. 1987) (where the court held that payment from owner was not a condition precedent to paying subcontractor but instead a timing mechanism indicating when payment should be made); But see. Straham v. Landis Construction Co., 499 So. 2d 417 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1986) (where the court strictly interpreted the "pay when paid" clause).

Jan 1, 1991

By Rakam Lama Tamang, Michael J. Byle, Stephen Ernst

"For various reasons, dredging may become necessary in front of existing bulkhead walls, either for channel deepening or for environmental remediation of contaminated sediments. The removal of sediments at the base of bulkhead walls removes support for the toe of the wall that must be assessed. Evaluation of this impact can be problematic for aging bulkheads for which no design or construction records exist. This paper will address the steps that should be taken in investigation and analysis to assure proper assessment and means to address uncertainties and gaps in information. The steps include pre-investigation data review, field inspection, geotechnical and geophysical investigation tools, parametric analysis and design tools. Examples from several bulkhead assessment projects will be provided that include a variety of conditions and tools for application. The focus of the paper will be on the integration of technologies to assess bulkhead geometry, geotechnical properties and stability, structural safety and constructability issues with removal of support, and means of temporary and permanent stabilization for environmental applications.IntroductionBulkheads and quays have existed as long as there have been waterfront activities. Some of the earliest date back to 1200 B.C.E.(Raban, 1987), however in the United States few predate the eighteenth century. Most extant bulkhead structures, and all steel sheet pile bulkhead walls date from the early 20th century or later. These structures function to protect the shore from erosion, support landside activities, and serve as place to moor and offload vessels. Regardless of the age or usage of existing bulkheads, it is essential to assess and protect them if needed where removal of soils on the water side of the bulkheads is planned to dredging.Waterfront BulkheadsExisting bulkhead structures can be classified into two types: Cantilevered, and anchored. Cantilevered walls are completely supported by the soil on the water side, while anchored bulkheads are supported both by the soil on the water side and anchorage on the land side (Figure 1). Walls may be constructed of timber, steel, or concrete. Timber walls may be lagging with soldier piles, cribbing with soldier piles, or timber sheeted such as Wakefield walls (Figure 2). Steel bulkheads are most commonly constructed using sheet piling comprised of interlocking A or Z shapes, though some historic walls were constructed with flat sheets. Precast concrete sheet piling has also been used in construction of bulkhead walls. Anchorage may be provided by steel bars or tendons attached to deadmen, sheet piling, driven piles, or earth anchors."

Jan 1, 2017